When they wrote the articles of the Constitution that put the Government and the Assembly in a race to eliminate each other, the enthusiastic re-founders of Montecristi were inspired by the old poetry that alluded to dying killing and killing dying. It might be supposed that this was the product of the novelty which characterized them and which led them to accept the horrors brought about by some Spanish advisers who, by the way, could never have proposed such a thing in their own country. Apart from this ingenuity, there is no doubt that the introduction of these provisions was a way to protect who by then had already become the unchallenged leader who would rule for decades. In those times, when they were aware of the risks, especially when evil spirits came to the presidency, they responded that these were provisions that were not there to be used. I mean, a threat.

But, in politics as well as in war, there comes a time when threats must come true. This happened last week, when the president decided to dissolve the worst assembly in almost forty-four years of democracy and thus end the uncertainty of the last months. However, as was foreseen since this provision was entered into the Constitution, its application opened another period as uncertain as the previous one. On the contrary, it cannot be considered normal that the ruler remains in office for an indefinite period (four, six, eight months?), while general elections are held solely to conclude the respective mandates. With a bit of vision, they could at least foresee the possibility of a scenario like the current one. The least they could have done in that case was to determine the definitive end of the period of legislative and executive power, and for elections to be held for a new four-year mandate.

As it was established, the government’s agenda is unbalanced, political actors have to hastily prepare their personnel and their strategies, internal and external economic entities are paralyzed, and citizens lose all mid-term references. Regardless of which government was in charge of implementing the measure (or was forced to implement it, as is the case now), the problem is not there, but in the institutional design. Re-founders will confirm that if their invention served to re-establish something, that something is instability.

In fact, we are entering an uncertain situation in which the Government is obliged to press the accelerator to the maximum in order to moderately align with its program or most immediate goals, while other actors are weighing the convenience of participating in this election or preparing to do it within two years. It is the most complete expression of immediate politics, the empire of a very short term, in short, improvisation. Everything that happens in these months will be subordinated to the election parameters of the competition, which, strictly speaking, is just a warm-up for the next one. All this cannot be attributed to the decision of the Government, nor to the impetuousness of the Assembly. This is the price of re-establishing mediocrity. (OR)